Is this Barry Goldwater’s year?
In 1964, America’s conservatives ran one straight up the middle, staking their fortunes on an unabashed, fire-breathing right-winger named Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater wanted to roll back Social Security and he promised to block the Democrats’ plan to implement Medicare and Medicaid.
He lost to Lydon Johnson — architect of the war on poverty — in one of the most lopsided elections in US history, garnering roughly 38% of the vote.
For a generation after that defeat, until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, moderates ruled the GOP. But in the decades since, the Right has emerged bit by bit to once again define the Republican movement.
Two years after Democrats drubbed them again in the 2008 elections, the GOP has doubled-down on its conservatism, spurred by the tea party movement and by insurgent candidates from Alaska to Kentucky.
Establishment Republicans seen as staunchly conservative a few years ago were either kicked aside by primary voters, or forced to tack hard to the right.
John McCain, the maverick from Arizona who once regularly crafted bipartisan centrist legislation, survived only by reinventing himself as a build-that-darn-fence outsider.
It appears that Lisa Murkowski, the moderate from Alaska, won’t survive her challenge last night from a staunch Sarah Palin conservative.
What this leaves us with is a rematch of 1964.
You have a Democratic Party that is still largely defined by its loyalty to those war-on-poverty ear programs, and by a Lyndon Johnson style of establishment-center-left politics.
And you have a Republican Party that promises a kind of counter-revolution that’s very much from Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of A Conservative Playbook.
Like Goldwater, a lot of the GOP’s candidates are prone to saying outlandish things that get them in trouble.
Some Democrats think the Republicans have screwed up, nominating a field that’s just too far-right for Main Street voters, even in a year when the economy has people mad as hornets.
I’m not so sure. In some ways the country is more volatile and impulsive than in 1964.
And these days, the comfort we take in our social safety net is off-set by the nerve-wracking size of our national debt.
When the votes are counted in November, this could finally turn out to be Barry Goldwater’s year.
Tags: election10
.jpg)
It’s always Barry Goldwater’s year.
Since 1980, the rich have won, chipping away at middle class earnings and poverty programs, year after year. They never stop. They’re getting at public schools right now, and they’re going to get Bret’s public pension soon, they’ve never stopped waging war on public TV and radio, and they’ll get Social Security eventually, all in the name of “shared sacrifice” or “paying off debt” or “responsibility” or “the efficiency of the markets,” all the while getting subsidies here while finding cheaper labor overseas. Corporate profits have soared this year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/consumer-confidence-corporate-profits_n_661601.html
But they’re keeping the money, and not hiring, and working hard to kill any public sector activity that doesn’t enrich them. Not shrink it. Kill it.
They don’t need us any more.
Rick Lazio was on the Teevee last night harping on about unions….and not the teacher’s union. He was upset about Police and Firemen unions supporting those damn liberals. If I were a member of a public sector union, I would be a bit worried about the future.
MAybe I’m not the typical conservative, but I take exception to your post OA. I’m after fiscal responsibility and smaller gov’t, not raiding pensions, dumping Social security or gutting schools. And while I have nothing against the rich (except envy), I don’t think myself or any of the conservatives I talk with almost daily are “rich” by any stretch of the imagination. We want the middle class to stop getting the shaft and to stop jobs from disappearing.
I have a hard time equating myself with the people you’re describing OA.
oa apparently didn’t read beyond the article’s headline.
The profits that huffington said to be soooo great, were measured from July 1 – 21, and the S&P was at a nine month low on July 2. How convenient.
A 19-day 4.5% increase off a nine-month low is record profit!
Typical.
“In some ways the country is more volatile and impulsive than in 1964.”
That is a scary thought.
I’m not equating you with them, Bret.
I think a lot of conservatives, though, are unwittingly used by them to enrich them. Not saying you are.
But this story about the Koch brothers funding of the Tea Party is a little depressing:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
And predictably, there’s a right-wing media firestorm over it. But the fact is, the Bros Koch are getting a lot of not-rich people up in arms, and they’re the biggest beneficiaries of the movement. Yet they won’t stand up publicly for it. Like I said, depressing. At least Soros is out there with his opinions.
JDM.
That wasn’t profit being measured from July 1-21; it was consumer confidence.
That’s what was being referred to in the story as “the survey.” As in “the survey” of “consumer confidence” that was taken from “July 1-21.”
As opposed to the “S&P,” which is a stock market index, which at the time was rising in part because of big profits reported in July by companies like DuPont. Which isn’t hiring.
At least that’s what it said in the article you accused me of not reading.
Ok, I will post it here,
“The survey was taken July 1-21, beginning just before the Standard & Poor’s 500 index hit a nine-month low of 1,022.58 on July 2. It had risen 4.5 percent by July 21…”
The “it” at the beginning of the second sentence clearly refers to the S&P 500 Index, not consumer confidence. Read carefully.
Continue reading…
DuPont’s profits came from the Asia Pacific region.
They are not hiring here, because they are not profitable here.
Get it?!!
Huffington is misleading you.
But look who has been in power since 1960. We have had long periods of more liberal control of the US Congress and the Presidency. Since 1980 indeed we have seen Reagan and the two Bush’s and the Gingrich Congress in 1994. But the rest have all been Democrats (if you don’t count Ford).
I don’t see the balance of power on the political front to be favoring those who are called conservatives particularly now. We have the most liberal president in decades and a pretty liberal congress so we will see if they do what they are supposed to do.
JDM,
“The survey” is not the S&P 500.
“The survey” is referring to the Consumer Confidence Index, referenced in an earlier paragraph, here:
“The Consumer Confidence Index came in at 50.4 in July, a steeper-than-expected decline from the revised 54.3 in June, according to a survey the Conference Board. The decline follows last month’s decline of nearly 10 points, from 62.7 in May, and is the lowest point since February. It takes a reading of 90 to indicate a healthy economy – a level not seen since the recession began in December 2007.”
The S&P is a stock index, which was used to contrast Wall Street’s euphoria over corporate profits.
The two have nothing to do with each other. Which is kind of the point of the article.
If by “get it” you mean “misreading it,” no, I don’t get it.
Sorry for the hijack of this thread. I guess JDM and I just have to agree to disagree–about how to read.
Mervel,
Yes, there have been periods of liberal control. A long time ago. I chose 1980 because that’s when the real dismantling of the old liberal New Deal/Great Society establishment really began. “All the rest (of the presidents since 1980) have been Democrats” is true, the rest being Clinton and Obama. Which means since 1980, we’ve had five GOP presidential terms, and 2.4 Democratic terms (two for Clinton, 0.4–so far–for Obama).
For proof that the rich have been winning since then, look at corporate and top-income tax rates (they’ve fallen substantially) and the richest 10% of the people’s share of the country’s wealth (it’s grown substantially). And they want more. Like I said, Bret’s pension, social security privatization, public school privatization, even things like parking fees. Morgan Stanley bought the city of Chicago’s parking meters, and jacked up the prices.
But at least it’s not socialism.